BARGAINING UPDATE #5 - Progress was made, but persistent disagreements signal a long fight ahead. 

TL;DR:

• We have reached another Tentative Agreement for the Bargaining Unit Information article.

• We won very important rights in the Employee Rights article!

• NU’s Police Department will not assist in ICE activities!

• The University has again stated its refusal to accept Union Shop. They believe they should tell the Union how to do its job.

Dear members,

Yesterday marked our fifth bargaining session with Northwestern University, and we are pleased to share some significant updates.

The good:

The University came back to us with seven (7) counterproposals: Discipline and Discharge, Employee Rights, Grievance Procedure, International Employee Rights, University Management Rights, Union Rights, and No strike/No lockout.

We presented two counterproposals: Non-Discrimination and Inclusive Work Environment.

We reached a tentative agreement on Bargaining Unit Information! This helps with outreach to new members and Union record keeping.

We also immediately responded to their proposal on Employee Rights! Current important points of agreement for our Union include our authorship rights, the right to apply for grants as principal investigators, and some academic freedom protections.

We won a crucial victory for our international colleagues: Northwestern University Police Department will not engage in federal civil immigration enforcement activities, in accordance with the Illinois Trust Act!

Mr. Clint Eastwood portraying "The Good" in the famous spaghetti western: "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly." 

The bad:

The University has yet to respond to our proposals on Appointment Letter, Workload, and Union Recognition.

While the University promises that NUPD will follow state law regarding not collaborating with ICE, they were not interested in giving workers advance notice when compelled to provide their records to DHS. This is a concern for international workers who fear being targeted by the Trump administration.

The University is only committed to making “best efforts to timely complete work authorization documentation”. Their “best efforts” are not good enough; we need a concrete timeline for the completion of this required paperwork.

Mr. Leo Van Cleef portraying "The Bad" in the famous spaghetti western: "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly." 

The ugly:

The University continues its refusal to accept Union Shop, essentially telling us as the Union how it should operate. If they keep prying into our business, we look forward to returning the favor.

The University is trying to limit our ability to discuss union rights and working conditions with postdocs and RAs at work during business hours. They completely refused to allow union orientations for new employees, preventing the Union from educating new members about our rights.

Unsurprisingly, the University has asked us to waive our right to strike during the life of the union contract and implied that we could be asked to scab on striking graduate students. They also clearly stated that we will have to cross picket lines if other NU union workers go on strike, as a refusal to cross will be interpreted as strike activity. Put simply, the University is asking us to undermine solidarity with other workers, thereby endangering our members in the process. This cannot stand!

BARGAINING UPDATE #3 - Hitting A Stride: Though Progress is Made, NU Refuses to Rule Out Cooperation with ICE 

TL;DR:

• We reached a tentative agreement on Health and Safety, made movement on several other articles, and are now negotiating all non-economic articles. This momentum came from our collective action, which pushed the University to meet more frequently and respond more quickly.

• Major fights remain. The University rejected our Academic Freedom proposal, continued pushing for an Open Shop, weakened anti-retaliation protections, and removed language preventing NU Police Department collaboration with ICE and DHS. We’ll keep fighting for stronger protections for all workers, especially international workers. 

Dear members,

Yesterday marked our third bargaining session, and much progress was made! 

We presented counterproposals to the University on three articles: Non-Discrimination, Inclusive Work Environment, and Union Security. The University gave their first response to seven of our March 17th proposals: Appointment Letter, Employee Rights, International Employee Rights, Workload, Grievance Procedure, Union Rights, and Academic Freedom. They also responded on Health and Safety, Discipline and Discharge, and Bargaining Unit Information, which we began discussing at our last session. We are still discussing Recognition. This means we are now negotiating all initially proposed articles. For details, you can always consult our Bargaining Tracker! We appreciate the University’s commitment to negotiating and look forward to continuing to make progress. We responded to three articles (Discipline and Discharge, Bargaining Unit Information, and Health and Safety) during the session. 

Our collective action at the April 21st session catalyzed this movement, transitioning from sessions over a month apart to meetings every other week. We’ve gone from receiving a handful of proposals in over a month to receiving counters on all of our proposals just two weeks later. We reiterate: collective action gets the goods. United we bargain, divided we beg.

Let’s dig in here!

A tentative agreement on Health and Safety!

In our last update, we highlighted how the University was prepared to “promote” but not “ensure” a safe workplace. After we explained at the last session that this would be unacceptable, the University has moved. Their counter proposal yesterday included the word “ensure”, as in our initial proposal. We’ve now signed a tentative agreement on Health and Safety, meaning we can check that article off our list. That’s another win for postdocs and RAs in our ongoing struggle for improved working conditions. 

Postdocs and RAs having a cozy fire now that we're ensured a safe workplace.

Progress on several articles

Many of the University’s counterproposals begin with language that we initially proposed on March 17th, albeit with some modifications. In many cases, we’re not so far apart. 

On Bargaining Unit Information, we have successfully negotiated for monthly updates on hiring lists and employee records, a significant improvement from the University's initial quarterly proposal. Similarly, several clauses that we found concerning were removed from the Discipline and Discharge article. For example, they retracted their proposal enabling the University to put postdocs and RAs on indefinite paid administrative leave, which we view as a form of disciplinary action that interferes with our ability to do research. We welcome this change. 

Other proposals from the University (Appointment Letter, Employee Rights) provide a starting point to work from. We look forward to discussing these in the coming sessions.

However, the distance between our workers’ demands and the proposals of the University are greater, for other articles. Not everything yesterday was positive, as we’ll elaborate on here.

The University still doesn’t meet our standards on protections from discrimination—especially for international workers

Non-Discrimination

The University states that their policies are enough to protect workers. But from our discussions with members, we know of instances of retaliation. We strongly reaffirmed our commitment to safeguarding our members by reinserting language protecting workers from retaliation when reporting mistreatment and misconduct in our response to the University’s Non-discrimination counter proposal. Graduate workers have protections from retaliation in their contract and we refuse to settle for less than our colleagues.  

International Employee Rights 

In a union where over 70% of workers are international, protections for international workers are critical. These rights are under assault under the current federal government. That’s why our March 17th proposal demanded that the Northwestern University Police Department (NUPD) not collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The University struck through this text completely. In writing:

NUPD will not collaborate with DHS or ICE on civil immigration enforcement actions. 

This is unacceptable. We will dive deeper into this matter in our next update.

BARGAINING UPDATE #2 - NORTHWESTERN THINKS POSTDOCS & RAs DON'T DESERVE UNION SHOP

April 21, 2026 

TL;DR: 

• Collective action gets the goods. NU agreed to regular negotiations twice per month in May, June, and July. However, these are half-day sessions. Northwestern continues to delay.

• Northwestern suggests Open Shop for postdocs and RAs, proposing standards lower than virtually any other union at the University.

• General Members’ Meeting on Thursday, April 23rd at 11am. We’ll provide updates on our second round of bargaining. RSVP here!

• Social at Beermiscuous on Friday, April 24th at 6:30pm. RSVP here!

Dear members,

Today was our second negotiation session—and what a session it was!

This morning, members showed up in massive numbers to send the University a message: FULL DAYS, NO DELAYS. We rallied, chanted, and shared coffee and bagels. Northwestern’s security tried to put a stop to it, at one point preventing members of the bargaining committee from entering the elevator to get to the meeting room. Fortunately, the BC eventually made it up to the room. 

This collective action moved the University. At the end of our session, they committed to two dates in June and two in July. The lesson is clear: united we bargain, divided we beg. 

Postdocs and RAs showing up to tell the University: FULL DAYS, NO DELAYS. Not pictured: members of the University’s team taking out their phones to film and sneer at us.

Unfortunately, they did not commit to full-day sessions, nor did they commit to meeting in Chicago. This is unacceptable. We need full-day negotiation sessions, and we need them now. We need to negotiate in our workplaces, not random buildings in downtown Evanston, distant from either campus. 

Beyond our discussion on dates and logistics, the University offered counterproposals to several articles: Non-Discrimination, Union Security, Health and Safety, Bargaining Unit Information, and Discipline and Discharge. They introduced two new proposals on University Management Rights and No Strike clauses. Notably, they rejected our entire Inclusive Work Environment Article. What’s more, after 5 weeks of missed deadlines and slow responses to emails, they failed to respond to 12 other articles we proposed. What were they doing for those five weeks? 

In good news, we did sign our first tentative agreements, on Ground Rules and Severability. We also made quick work of their proposals, drafting and responding with counterproposals on Health and Safety, Bargaining Unit Information, and Discipline and Discharge at the session. We look forward to their counterproposals on the aforementioned articles, and the 12 they’ve not yet responded to, in the coming weeks. Let’s go through the main highlights here. For even more details on language, visit our bargaining tracker!

You can also watch BC member Madeline walk us through today’s negotiations here. 

The fight for Union Shop

The main point of contention at the session was the University’s rejection of Union Shop. Union shop means that all workers join the union within a set period of time after being hired. Union shop is fair, democratic, and ensures everyone pays their share.

Northwestern counterproposed with an open shop. First, they mischaracterized our proposal as “Closed Shop”, which is not accurate. Closed Shop has been illegal since 1947, and their team knows this. They then argued that postdocs and RAs have a uniquely high turnover, and that new hires may not want to join the union if they didn’t vote in our election last Summer. They framed open shop as a matter of “freedom” for new hires. They also claimed our contracts often last only one year and suggested that custodial workers, who may work at NU for 30+ years, can have Union Shop, but postdocs and RAs cannot. 

NU’s behaviour at the table makes one thing clear: they either have not done their homework, or they are deliberately twisting our proposals. We sure don’t know any workers who move cities or countries just to stay in their position for only a year! In reality, many postdocs stay in their positions for 5+ years. And every other union at NU has Union Shop. Postdoc unions across the country (e.g., Cornell, Columbia, Mount Sinai) have Union Shop. We’ll fight for Union Shop, too. 

“Those international workers you care so much about” 

NU again resorted to divisive language, falsely accusing us of not caring about international workers because we are demanding Union Shop. This is patently untrue. In fact, we know that international workers stand to benefit the most from a strong union founded on Union Shop with enforceable grievance procedures. These can help protect foreign postdocs/RAs from unfair termination and forced departure from the country. 

Indeed, we opened the session by highlighting the unique challenges international workers face. More than 70% of our union members are international. NU tried to turn that reality against us. In opposing Union Shop, they argued it would force the University to fire “those international workers you care so much about.” That language is unacceptable and dehumanizing.

International workers are not bargaining chips. They are essential to the University, and they deserve real protection. They are not a weapon to be used against a bargaining committee that is itself 2/3 international.

Can the University ensure a safe workplace?

In their counterproposal on Health and Safety, NU struck the term “ensure” from the statement  “The University shall maintain policies that ensure a safe workplace”, and replaced it with “promote”. That is a major downgrade. Promoting safety is not the same as ensuring it. Moreover, NU has already agreed that graduate students deserve policies that ensure their safety. We work in the same labs, often training those very graduate students, and deserve the same protection. We will not accept weaker standards for our unit.

Protecting employees from retaliation 

The University has made its position clear. Verbally, they rejected our proposal to establish an inclusive work environment. They also completely struck through our proposal to protect workers from retaliation. We have to ask: does the University actually want an inclusive workplace? Do they care about preventing retaliation against workers? Their behaviour at the table does not inspire confidence. We may finally have an answer to the question of how they found it acceptable to sign a deal with the federal government under the Trump regime’s anti-DEI crusade. 

Academic freedom—for me but not for thee

In the University’s proposal on Management Rights, they included a provision about academic freedom stating that nothing in the eventual contract shall limit or infringe upon the University’s academic freedom. When we raised the example of a research team conducting anti-trans research that actively harms members of our community, the University’s response was that they would not infringe on researchers’ academic freedom. However, they did not respond to our proposal to protect our academic freedom.

Let’s be honest about what this means: the University is willing to shield research that targets and harms trans people (while rejecting our protective language from Inclusive Work Environment), and then cynically hide behind the language of academic freedom to excuse it. This is not a neutral principle, it is a choice. And it tells us exactly whose harm the University is prepared to overlook. If the University won’t keep us safe, we’ll keep us safe. Collective bargaining is how we make that happen.